Supreme Court's Stance on 'Bulldozer Justice': A Critique
Understanding 'Bulldozer Justice'
'Bulldozer justice' refers to the controversial practice of demolishing properties of alleged lawbreakers without following due legal process. This extrajudicial action has raised significant concerns about the rule of law and the protection of citizens' rights.
Supreme Court's Criticism
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the practice of 'bulldozer justice.' The Court emphasized that such actions are "like bulldozing the rule of law." It stressed that demolitions must only occur after following established legal procedures and providing the accused with an opportunity to defend themselves.
Critique of 'Bulldozer Justice'
The Supreme Court's criticism of 'bulldozer justice' highlights several key concerns: *
Violation of Due Process:
'Bulldozer justice' undermines the fundamental principle of due process by bypassing established legal procedures. Individuals accused of crimes should have the right to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend themselves before their property is seized or destroyed. *
Erosion of Rule of Law:
The practice of 'bulldozer justice' weakens the rule of law by allowing authorities to act outside of the legal framework. This sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the authority of the judiciary. *
Selective Targeting:
Critics argue that 'bulldozer justice' is often applied selectively, targeting certain groups or individuals based on political or other biases. This can lead to discrimination and the violation of fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's criticism of 'bulldozer justice' is a timely reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. Demolitions without due process must be condemned as a violation of fundamental principles and a threat to the rule of law.
Comments